Lieberman to Run as a Republican?

That's what Chris Shays and others are proposing, via a bombshell article in the Hartford Courant:

It's been the subject of whispered conversations among top Republican officials for the past month. Now, U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, R-4th District, has let slip the secret: GOP officials have discussed cross-endorsing Democratic Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman this fall.

In an interview today with the editorial board of The Advocate of Stamford, Shays said he intends to vote for Lieberman and is encouraging a Republican endorsement of the three-term senator.



And he's not the only one:

The remark was not immediately reported by The Advocate, but it set off a flurry of calls among Republicans who have been gauging support for the idea among GOP candidates, including Gov. M. Jodi Rell and U.S. Reps. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, and Nancy L. Johnson, R-5th District.

One GOP operative who was aware of the discussions said premature public disclosure of the possible cross-endorsement probably would kill the idea. That seems to be case.

By Tuesday evening, spokesmen for top Republicans publicly distanced themselves from the possibility of backing Lieberman, who faces a Democratic primary over his support of President Bush and the war in Iraq.



Regardless of whether Joe runs as a Republican, add Shays to the list of "Republicans for Lieberman" (along with Buckley, Hannity, and the rest):

"Their position on the war can't be closer," said Michael Sohn, who is Shays' campaign manager. "They both voted to go into Iraq, and they both support staying until the job is done."



Glad to see the Lamont campaign on top of this:

"We're not surprised that there are people within the Republican Party that would think about endorsing Joe. He clearly is George Bush's favorite Democrat," said Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager.

http://lamontblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/lieberman-to-run-as-republican.html

...must have a better offer on the (R) side.

Wonder what it is?

Except for Zell Miller, Lieberman has been the foremost among the Vichy Democrats.

It has been a long time....

!!

!!

!!

Good, turn Republican your better off and then Ben Nelson can do the same thing and after that Lincoln Chafee can become an Independent who caucus with the dems like what Jeffords did.

Good plan, huh?

Compare the voting records of Lieberman, Nelson and Chaffee...and you will see Chaffee votes the Democratic position by far the least. Lieberman is north of 80% and Nelson is at around 60%. Explain exactly to me how you are going to elect a Democrat to the left of Nelson from Nebraska.

cause far left democrats don't really exsist in omaha or lincoln but it's just sickening how upports the republicans so many times.

Chafee is noted as the most liberal republicans in the Senate, he was the only one who voted againist Samuel Alito and he voted againist several reconiliation budget cut admendments

But as a vote for Harry Reid as majority leader, Nelson is important.

Chaffee is liberal for a Republican, but if he had been a Democrat all this time, people here would have been calling for his head as a DINO and right winger!

Or maybe him and Chafee can change.

For Joe's sake, I would hope more than the 6,703 voters who came out to support him as President.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/26653

If he really did switch, I'd bet anything he'd do it after his next election.

Lieberman can be "bought".

It doesn't make any sense. This will hurt him in the primary. If he wins the primary, he'll win re-election easily so he doesn't need this. Plus, with * approval so low and the Repub corruption scandals, this will only hurt him. I can see how this would have helped him when * was at high approval ratings but why would he want to sign onto a sinking ship?

Richard Shelby did it, Ben Campbell did it can Lieberman could too.

I guess Lieberman thinks he's invisable and can do or say anything and the people of Connecticut will still kiss his ass.

Come on people in Hartford, wake up and smell the coffee, Joe Lieberman does not support your best intrest.

Maybe he won't do it and is only using them. :shrug:

really call him that. I would LOVE to see him switch parties so he can be true to who he really is and we can be rid of the little weaselly turncoat.

Joe hurts the Party by undercutting our positions. He gets way too much face time on the national stage, simply because he's willing to kiss up to this administration. Of course, I'd like to see Lamont beat him (I've donated to Ned's campaign)....I wonder if Joe would jump parties if he's re-electrd? That would be the ultimate insult to the Democratic voters of Ct.

If anything, he's moderately liberal. The left-wing is so blinded by their hatred of his hawkishness on foreign policy and his public declarations of religious faith that they ignore the big picture. They'll comb through his voting record for evidence that he's a traitor while ignoring the overwhelming majority of votes on which he toes the party line. And they never subject any other Democrat senators to such scrutiny, because if they did, they'd be forced to admit that many other Democrats can be just as easily (mis)characterized as Lieberman is.

His voting record is not the issue. The problem I have is that he tries to speak for all Democrats. The Republican corporate media and Joe Lieberman have a special 'quid pro quo' going. He gets political face time weekly (along with Joe Biden)....in return for this, they get to speak on the issues, as if they reflect the whole party. They both do a good job exemplifying Nader's comment that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Parties.

So I have no problem with his record (although his pro-choice position is a joke), just that he has continuously undercut any viable Democratic opposition to the Republicans on key issues like the Iraqi War. He was, like Joe Biden and the Republican Party, pro-war. But he's the type of Democrat that the Republican media want people to see on TV. They know what they need to say to get invited back nextweek. I won't be shocked if he jumps Parties and becomes a marginalized Republican moderate....but Joe will find his usefulness to his media masters no longer has the value it carries now.

and that is that while they hate Joe Lieberman, most of the voters in Connecticut like him.

Indeed, his broad bi-partisan appeal is the reason why all of the top Democratic officials in the state have endorsed Joe Lieberman. They want him at the top of the ticket so Democrats down the ticket can ride his coattails.

Why should it come as any surprise that the Republican Party in Connecticut would consider nominating Lieberman instead of a candidate who would lose to Lieberman by a lopsided margin?

Of course, only the left-wing would be so deluded as to think Lieberman would actually allow himself to be nominated by the Republicans. The left-wing is so blinded by their pathological hatred of Lieberman that they ignore the obvious -- Lieberman is a Democrat. He's always been a Democrat. He supports Democratic candidates in his own state and across the country. The left-wing may fantasize about Lieberman switching parties (after all, it's not as if they have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing the Democratic primary voters of Connecticut that they should get rid of him), but it's not going to happen.

:eyes:

though I disagree with him about the war in Iraq. And I think he was deluding himself in believing he's Presidential material though he could become an elder statesman of the party. Yes Joe is a Democrat and a great one at that.

...Lieberman, though he has a 70% approval among Republicans, has sub-50% approval among Democrats. That means that when Democrats vote, with Lieberman being up there, they are actually MORE likely to NOT vote straight ticket. Meanwhile, the GOP might split their ticket and vote for him, given that they are his biggest supporters, or they might just figure "why should I be bothered" and go straight ticket Republican.

Why would Lieberman want to switch parties? Connecticut hasn't been won by any Republican Presidential candidate since the 80's! Democrats now control most of the state offices, in what was traditionally one of the most Republican hotbeds of the country. Now Bush is only a political strike against every Republican candidate in the northeast.

I can think of only one reason Lieberman would switch parties..Republicans control the Senate. But if Lieberman switched parties he risk losing all the seniority gained as a Democrat. Whenever he ran for re-election..he could only win by distancing himself from candidates like Bush and Jodi Rell, but doing so without insulting Republican voters in the primaries! Another battle he would face in the primaries would be the religious right..a group that shows little mercy to candidates who don't view Jesus as the savior for all mankind!

If Lieberman likes cutting his own political throat, then let him! But the Republicans running for office in Connecticut now have the steepest political mountain to climb..

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

is that Joe has very wide support in Connecticut, but everyone who has probed it finds that most of it is very shallow indeed. The more people see of Joe, the less they think of him. It's not just you or me, it's everyone.

The real problem in Connecticut is that for one, it's a small state, and second, for some reason it has been a lot slower than others to rid itself of old politicians.

Joe was first elected in the mid-70s. The whole Democratic crew from that era is problematic and as backboned as jello- Biden, Feinstein, etc.

There's a utilitarian argument for keeping Joe around. There's also a point where Democrats have to decide to be a ruling party and no longer countenance the politics of inner weakness and inferiority that the likes of Joe champion.

We must purge the Left-Wing - they are so evil, they have taken us down the path of death and destruction - all they do is whine on about things that are evil, like education, health care, Waging Peace, Not War, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, and Socio-Econimic Equality and Justice - so much EVIL and Destruction the Left-Wing brings to the party and the country. just a bunch of evil communists!

Purge the Left! Yes that what we must do! Purge them the Party and the Country! They don't need no stinkin' representation, and all their causes just suck anyway.

in the hopes that the Democratic primary voters are stupid enough to (a) believe it and (b) nominate Lamont, who unlike Lieberman, could actually lose to the Republican nominee.

that throws the Repukes for a loop.

Ned will do more to help Dems running for office that Lieberman. Ned, not Holy Joe, will show a clear division between Repuke corrupt and empty policies than Republican lobbyist funded Lieberman.

n/t

The original post title here "Lieberman to Run as a Republican?" just doesn't jive when you start digging through all of the links to get to the original article.



Since when is it even news that some Republicans support Lieberman? That's ancient history !!!!!!

If you read the article though.. it sounds like Chris Shays is desparate and is trying to "ride the Joe-mentum". No one here knows why he's so popular in Connecticut, but evidently Shays reads the same polls that we do.

Hells bells!

Here I thought we had some earth-shattering news and I read the thing.. Joe Lieberman is saying "Thanks, but I'm supporting the Democrat"

This was a false alarm post if ever I've seen one! The dude ain't going nowhere.

It's because voters aren't nearly as ideological as DU'ers are. Voters actually like the idea of politicians who are willing to reach across party lines and build bi-partisan coalitions. Why do you think McCain is so popular?

That's why Lieberman polls higher among registered voters than he does among Democratic primary voters.

How can I go on now? It's like finding the end of the 'internets'! :rofl:

Political parties push candidates to the left or right in primaries. After the primaries you see candidates "campaign for the center" because most undecided voters tend to be in the middle on issues.

Plus the smaller the party universe, the more extreme ideologically. That's why caucuses have more leftie and rightie turnouts than primaries do.

CT has voter reg by party so Lieberman is handicapped that Ind and Repubs cannot cross over and vote for him as, let's say, they could if they lived in Minnesota.

So, who the heck voted for J Kerry in 04?

you on the other hand are just playing games. You keep bringing up how many people voted for Lieberman after he withdrew from the race as if that is a meaningful number. :eyes:

H Dean somehow managed to win his home state primary. :eyes:

Dean's situation as the leader of the primary for months and then crashing in Iowa was quite different than Lieberman who was consistently in the high single digits in polls but never got the attention Dean did. Why not use polls or primaries for when Lieberman was still in the race? Because you can't make a case that fits your agenda?

IOWA

N Dakota ?


I guess unrelated facts are only relevant if you post them, correct?

"Dean's situation as the leader of the primary for months and then crashing in Iowa was quite different than Lieberman who was consistently in the high single digits in polls but never got the attention Dean did."

You can't draw comparisons on Liebermans support and Deans support by looking at what happened after they withdrew, its a nonsequitor my friend.

Dolstein was not making several points. This is Dolstein:

"I know why Joe's popular in Connecticut. It's because voters aren't nearly as ideological as DU'ers are. Voters actually like the idea of politicians who are willing to reach across party lines and build bi-partisan coalitions. Why do you think McCain is so popular?"

He /She then followed that by including primary voters as having the same tendency as DU'ers.

I agree with that and will gladly debate that with you to your hearts content.

Jim4Wes: Why not use polls or primaries for when Lieberman was still in the race? Because you can't make a case that fits your agenda?


Me: 2 primaries when Lieberamn was still in the race


Jim4Wes: You can't draw comparisons on Liebermans support and Deans support by looking at what happened after they withdrew


:shrug:

I don't care if you want to use those primaries to make your case. What is your case again?

What is this a merry go round?

Now they are not important? :shrug:

Hmm, why is that?

That Kucinich beat Lieberman in Iowa and North Dakota in a primary? Yep thats true. But what does it mean other than that, are you going to enlighten us or not?

First you questioned my agenda , then you wanted specific primaries and I gave them to you. :shrug:


Maybe you should ask dolstein why a guy who was on the winning ticket four short years earlier, got completely smoked in 2004.

Everything you guys have asked for has been given, every spin has been answered. Suddenly you want me to enlighten you by making a case? Get real.

I started in this thread by stating that "J Lieberman better hope he gets more support than he did in 04," and that my friend is still true.

n/t

it's not like he was asking people there to vote for him anymore.

J Lieberman drops out Feb 3rd (Keep in mind, this man was on the winning ticket 4 yrs earlier)

H Dean drops out 2 weeks later

Both Primaries held on the same day, March 2nd.

The results ?


CT J Lieberman loses with a 5% :losing to J Kerry by 53% pts

VT H Dean wins with a 58% :beating J Kerry by 24% pts

Barring any scandal, they are ALWAYS more popular.

from a state right next door as J Kerry was.

:shrug:

I'm in probably the most liberal spot in CT, in New Haven. But Joe's challenger is from Greenwich, hardly an ideological left place. This thing is complicated because of Joe being an orthodox Jew. I live in his old neighborhood, Westville, where many orthodox families live because they can walk to shull on the Sabbath. My guess is that they would not want to lose a voice for their faith in the Senate, which, given how horribly Jews have been treated historically, is understandable. I would also guess that they are mostly liberal on many other issues that non-orthodox or even Jewish Democrats might not be.

It will be intresting to see how this thing plays out. I have signed up to volunteer for Ned Lamont. I truly don't believe that Joe is switching parties. Our congresswoman, Rosa DeLauro, just endorsed him, along with other state dems.

:shrug:

I don't much care about his voting record, his stance on issues, or whether or not he flosses after every meal. Lieberman provides the illusion of "bipartisan" support for so many of this corrupt administration's policies, that his stance on anything else becomes irrelevant. Need a Democratic voice to say torture isn't so bad? Joementum, baby! Need a Democratic voice to say that protecting a woman's right to control her own body and choose whether and when to reproduce isn't quite as important as giving the worst president in history his way? Joementum again, baby!

It's nauseating and the sooner Lieberman gets on to his post-Senate career, the better off a whole lot of people all over the world will be.

NT

Although I don't know how much credence you're going to put in the source (emphasis added):

http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=231560

"In this case, I’ve met with Judge Gonzales. I've reviewed his record throughout his career. I'm familiar with his life story. I’ve reviewed the proceedings before the Judiciary Committee -- the comments made by many on the Committee in explaining their votes, as well as Judge Gonzales’ testimony there. I have concluded that this nominee deserves to be confirmed and, therefore, I will vote to confirm the nominee.

* * *

"As I look back post-September 11, what seems to be in Judge Gonzales’s memo and memos submitted by the State Department, by the Defense Department and others, there is a very serious and classically American debate going on about how to handle al Qaeda and the Taliban – prisoners taken from their membership. And what is the relevance of the Geneva Convention to those people? It is the argument of a nation that cares about the rule of law.

"You can agree with Judge Gonzales’s position in this matter or not. I happen to agree with the ultimate decision made."

He's nothing more than a damn traitor.

Anti-DLCers and progressives coudln't ask for a better gift.

I will not tolerate a Hannity-embracing politician who represents me! NO WAY!

"Conservatives for LIEberman" - :puke:!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go NED LAMONT!!!

:puke:

Rove got Texas. He flipped a few key Democratic leaders and the people followed their leaders. I think they have it in the accounting that a % of the jewish vote should go their way. And Lieberman is the leader they have focussed on.

on the Lieberman bandwagon and running as fast as they can away from the Bush/Delay crew. CT is a very democratic state, and Lieberman will never run as a repub.

...well, he might as well make it official.

All this says is that the Republicans are giving up on trying to find somebody to run against him. And....

"By Tuesday evening, spokesmen for top Republicans publicly distanced themselves from the possibility of backing Lieberman"

But then that's the beauty of the "progressive purist" position....the relentless honesty (snicker)....

All these threads about Lieberman running as a Republican is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of DU'ers who seeth and obsess over Liberman to the point of being psychopatic. As per traditional scapegoating strategy, you seek to dehumanize Lieberman by painting him as an "other." So naturally you ignore the decades he's spent supporting the Democratic Party, both in and out of office, and his lifetime of support for Democratic causes like civil rights and the environment. You either ignore the support he has received, and continues to receive, from Democratic office holders and unions in the state, or you dismiss this support as the product of some evil machination on the part of the evil puppetmaster Lieberman. The thought that a Democratic official or union leader could, out of their own free will, support Lieberman's reelection is something that simply declared beyond the realm of tolerable discourse. Just as scapegoaters of the past sought to deny the humanity of their targets, the DU community seeks to deny the Democratic status of Lieberman, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

hell your entire post here was crafted out of thin air.

Here's a fact: Lieberman is a big supporter of bush's invasion.
Most poeple here are not. If you can't handle that I suggest you
do something about it besides telling yourself little fairy tales.

He may be a Democrat with whom you disagree on some issues, particularly the Iraq War. But why is it that DU'ers feel the need to declare that he isn't a Democrat at all, but really a Republican. When you consider how many DU'ers are Greens, socialists, libertarians, etc., it's pretty ironic that they're so quick to question the Democratic bona fides of others.

But hey, at least you're honest about something. You think that anyone who supports Bush's Iraq policy doesn't belong here, and, one presumes, has no business being in the Democratic Party. You've proven what I've been saying for quite some time -- that DU'ers are far more interested in purging the party of anyone who doesn't pass their left-wing litmus test than they are in expanding the party to the point where it is actually capable of regaining control of the federal government. Of course, this strategy will only guarantee the further marginzaliation of the Democratic Party, but I think that's the point, isn't it?

:eyes:

Because running to the right worked so dang swell for Mr Lieberman. :rofl:

So I guess that makes you Right-Wing?

My opposition to the Iraq war, and even my distaste for Sen. Lieberman's view in this and some other matters, does not blind me to the fact that he is, on the record and over the length of his career, certainly a Democrat of moderate liberal persuasion. He is not a demon, simply someone whose view of some matters is different than mine.

so what if he has a passable record on the environment.

I didn't say he was a demon, although you might have imagined that as people are so apt to do when facing an opposing opinion.

Ned is planning on running for U.S. Senate because, like most Connecticut Democrats, he is tired of being represented by a senator who is not willing to stand up to the President on the war — and on the numerous policy decisions that have proven so harmful to this country

Ned Lamont is a successful businessman who understands the importance of health care and education to our economy. He will fight for universal health care and to bring all of America's schools into the 21st Century. He believes the federal government should stay out of people's private lives and stop spying on its own citizens. He would push for energy conservation and bio fuels as better alternatives than the liquefied natural gas plant in Long Island Sound.

The polls show that Democrats are ready for a change, but the entrenched interests behind Joe Lieberman are going to fight tooth and nail and pour millions of dollars into this race. To win, we'll need volunteers working hard in every city and town — and we'll need thousands more Americans pledging to contribute financially as well.

http://www.nedlamont.com/

Sen. Lieberman is is no particular favorite of mine.

I mean come on, It's not like you have ever attacked a fellow Dem for his views on Guns or anything?

:eyes:

Although it was not from the GOP

Go get em Joementum!

The "war" was based on bush lies..and has no purpose. Talk about chasing after your own tail.

:spray:

Lieberman has a healthy challenge facing him because he never believed he would have a strong challenger or be appropriately called out for being a bushbot and bush enabler. :rofl:

Go Ned Lamont, Go!

The gnome from Connecticut does resemble Napoleon, doesn't he?

to GOP? If anything, aren't many Republicans thinking twice?!? And what does this say about Al Gore's discretion?

Going to switch parties and run as a Republican. I'd like to point out that a great many Unions and Democrats in Connecticut have also endorsed Senator Lieberman.

The Senator Lieberman bashers just don't like it because a minimal amount of people have endorsed Ned Lamont.

On Edit: Word.

and for that alone I hope G-d strikes the warmongering gnome dead and calls him to his well-deserved eternal damnation. He can spent eternity in Hades with the likes of Cheney and Bush!

The fact that you wish another person dead, a person who's done you no harm....this makes you no better than Bush or Cheney.

So Senator Lieberman isn't Senator Feingold, who the fuck cares, they're both DEMOCRATS. Are YOU a Democrat IndianaGREEN, huh?

He is an enabler of the Bush dictatorship!

Have you ever been happy with Democratic representation in Congress?

Also, IndianaGreen, is the Green as in Green Party? If so, why are you concerned with what the Democratic politicians are doing?

Member of my local Democratic Club. Volunteer on Carson's campaign two years ago, 4 years ago, 6 years ago, etc. Campaign volunteer on Carson's predecessor (Andy Jacobs, who now teaches at my college). I guess my Democratic bona fides are stronger than that of those that supported Zell Miller and Holy Joe.

On edit:

Should I mention that I was a member of Young Democrats when I was in Bloomington, Ind, eons ago?

Oh, yes, I was a Deaniac with my fellow Hoosiers in 2004, and I currently support Russ Feingold.

I was just curious is all, and I also like Senator Feingold. Regarding Zell Miller, he was a good Governor of Georgia and was pretty progressive, what happened to him when he got into the Senate I'll never know.

However, to you who say that Senator Lieberman isn't a Democrat and that somehow he's a Republican, then I give you this, this is Senator Lieberman Democrat v Julia Carson Democrat, I don't know if you're aware of these figures? This is your Julia Carson that you campaigned for.

Try these on for size: Christian Coalition, Lieberman 0%, Carson 25%; Phyllis Schlafley's Eagle Forum, Lieberman 0%, Carson 15%; FAIR (Immigration Reform pushing English as a national language) Kennedy 0%, Boxer 0%, Lieberman 0%, Carson 45%!; Family Research Council(2000), Lieberman 0%, Carson 33%; Family Research Council(2004), Lieberman 0%, Carson 8%; UAW, Lieberman 86%, Carson 79%; Citizens for Global Solutions, Kennedy A+, Boxer A+, Lieberman A, John McCain B, Carson B.

So on these recommendations, who would you say is the DINO again? Senator Lieberman or Julia Carson? The only thing that people have against Senator Lieberman is Iraq, which I disagree with him on myself.

It's terrible the way people bash a Democrat about ONE issue, without checking out their record on other issues.

vote. She has voted alongside the likes of John Conyers, and she is my Congresswoman and I stand behind her 100-percent.

Bush didn't kiss Julia Carson on the cheeks, he kissed Lieberman!

Did that make Kerry a Republican? :shrug:

See: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Republicans_for_Kerry_2004

Well done :)

:hug: :toast:

:hug: :toast:

COME TRUE! :crazy:

and Dodd from endorsing Republican opponents to Rell, Shays, Simmons, and Johnson. I DO NOT want the GOP to endorse Lieberman. I want him to be free to campaign against these SOB's. They are all Bush apologists. When push comes to shove, Republicans will always stick together.

A cross-endorsement is not the same as Lieberman switching parties.

It would be, in my humbele opinion, better for Lieberman to register as a member of the party is is politically aligned with, than to run as a DINO.